alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
================================================================================


 EXHIIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Kodiak Energy, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.


Dated:  August 14, 2007                      /s/ Mark Hlady
                                             ----------------------
                                             Name: Mark Hlady
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  August 14, 2007                      /s/ William Brimacombe
                                             ----------------------
                                             Name: William Brimacombe
                                             Title: Chief Financial Officer





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Hankey Baking Company *v.*National Bread Company, Appellant.

June 27, 1939:

Argued April 12, 1939.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.

*Robert Van der Voort,*of *Rahauser, Van der Voort & Royston,*for appellant.

*A. M. Oliver,*with him *Walter L. Ripple,*of *Ripple & Oliver,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

*24This action of trespass for property damage resulting from a collision between two trucks was tried in the county court by a judge without a jury. He found in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was entered on the finding. The judgment carries with it a finding that defendant’s driver was negligent and that plaintiff’s driver was free of contributory negligence. The court in banc sustained the judgment. Our reading of the testimony in the record leads us to agree with the trial judge and the court below.

This was not an intersection case, and no question as to right of way was involved. Each driver was required to keep on his own side of the road. If defendant’s driver had done so, the collision would not have occurred.

Iowa Street, running north and south in the City of Pittsburgh, connects with Ewart Drive running east and west, so as to form a continuous public highway. They do not cross or intersect each other. They join on a wide curve at the south end of Iowa Street and the east end of Ewart Drive. Each street is twenty feet wide between curbs.

Plaintiff’s driver was traveling south on Iowa Street, at two-thirty o’clock in the afternoon, at a speed of ten miles an hour. He was within two feet of the curb on his right hand, — the west side of the street.' Going around the curve into Ewart Drive he kept close to the curb on his right hand. The weather was foggy and the streets were wet — it had just stopped raining. The conformation of the lot abutting ,on the curve of the two roads prevented one seeing around the curve. While slowly traveling on his own side, close to the curb, around the curve into Ewart Drive, plaintiff’s truck was run into and damaged by defendant’s truck coming east up Ewart Drive, which in making the curve into Iowa Street was traveling over the center line of the road and trespassing on the lane of traffic rightfully used by vehicles traveling the other direction, that is *25going south on Iowa Street into Ewart Drive. If defendant’s driver had stayed on his own side of the road he would not have run into plaintiff’s truck.

The case is too clear to require further discussion.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Eddie Harold WALLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27533.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for-appellant.-

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Éügérie-Brady, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty.,. Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is burglary; the ptmishment, two years in the penitentiary.' ■" ■ ’ '

The record on appeal -contains no statement of facts or bills of exemption. All proceedings appear to be tegular arid'nothing is presented for review. ’ •

The judgment is affirmed;
#### Ex parte James MILLER.

No. 27681.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1955.

Alex P. Pope, Tyler, for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Smith County denying bail in a' rape case.

*287The prosecutrix, shown by the evidence to have been 14 years of age at the time of the offense charged and IS years old at the time of the hearing, was not called as a witness, and her absence is not explained.

Appellant, the father of the girl, made a voluntary statement which was offered in evidence at the hearing.

He therein admitted having sexual relations with the daughter on a number of occasions, with her consent, and stated that she had had intercourse with some other man before he had intercourse with her.

It was shown that the prosecutrix first reported the affair shortly before the filing of the charge.

■ Under the meager record before us, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court erred in denying bail.

The judgment is reversed and bail is granted in the sum of $5,000.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael J. Borman,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of AvocentCorporation on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30,2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Avocent Corporation.

 

Date: August 7,2009

 
|   | By:                                    | /s/ Michael J. Borman |
|--------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|   | Name: Michael J. Borman                |
|   | Title: Interim Chief Executive Officer |

 

I, Edward H. Blankenship,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of AvocentCorporation on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30,2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Avocent Corporation.

 

Date: August 7,2009

 
|   | By:                                                                                        | /s/ Edward H.  Blankenship |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|   | Name: Edward H.  Blankenship                                                               |
|   | Title: Senior Vice President of Finance, Chief  Financial Officer, and Assistant Secretary |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1657 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1657

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement 
   penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small 
    business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small 
  business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES FOR 
              MISREPRESENTATION OF A BUSINESS CONCERN AS A SMALL 
              BUSINESS CONCERN OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY VETERANS OR AS A 
              SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SERVICE-
              DISABLED VETERANS.

    Subsection (g) of section 8127 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``Any business'' and inserting ``(1) Any 
        business'';
            (2) by striking ``a reasonable period of time, as 
        determined by the Secretary'' and inserting ``a period of not 
        less than five years''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
    ``(2) In the case of a debarment under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
shall commence debarment action against the business concern by not 
later than 30 days after determining that the concern misrepresented 
the status of the concern as described in paragraph (1) and shall 
complete debarment actions against such concern by not later than 90 
days after such determination.
    ``(3) The debarment of a business concern under paragraph (1) 
includes the debarment of all principals in the business concern for a 
period of not less than five years.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In re Dan S. ARNOLD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 4, 1955.

No attorneys appeared of record on either side.

PER CURIAM.

The Board of Bar Commissioners of Kentucky State Bar Association filed two complaints against Dan S. Arnold, of Bardstown. The .first charged him with being guilty of unprofessional and unethical conduct as a practicing attorney. It averred he represented to Juanita June Sharp he had procured a divorce judgment for her, presented her with what purported to be a copy of the judgment signed ’by the presiding judge .of the Nelson Circuit Court, Hon. William R. ’Gentry, and collected the balance due from her on his fee. In fact the case had not been submitted to Judge Gentry and he had not entered judgment therein, nor had he signed the purported copy of the judgment respondent handed Mrs. Sharp.

The second complaint charged that five indictments had been returned at the October 1952 term of the Nelson Circuit Court charging Arnold with uttering forged checks in various amounts.

Respondent fled the country and Hon. J. Jerald Johnston was named as warning order attorney. Mr. Johnston reported he was unable to locate respondent and asked that the matter of disbarment be continued until Arnold personally could be brought before the court, as his conduct raised a serious question as to Arnold’s sanity. The Trial Committee refused to grant the continuance.

Subsequently, Arnold reappeared in Bardstown and on October 15, 1953, filed a pleading acknowledging receipt of copy of the charges filed against him by the Kentucky Bar Association and “respondent enters his appearance in this matter for all purposes and declines ,to plead or answer said charges and specifically waives any notice of hearing of further action in the matter and states he does not desire to contest said charges”.

The Trial Committee found respondent guilty as charged and recommended to the Board of Bar Commissioners that he be disbarred from the practice of law in .Kentucky. The Board unanimously accepted the report of the Committee and recommended to this court that Arnold be disbarred from the practice of law in this state.

In due time this court issued a rule against Arnold in accordance with RCA 3.450 to show cause, if any he could, within twenty days why the recommendation of the Board should not be enforced. Arnold made no response to the rule within twenty days, or at all, after it was served upon him.

It is now adjudged the rule be made absolute and the report of the Board be confirmed. An order will be entered disbarring Dan S. Arnold from the practice of law in the state of Kentucky.
Order entered September 23, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00798-CV

AMOS HEARD, R.N. AND EMINENT MEDICAL CENTER, LLC,

Appellants

V.

APRIL ROBLES, R.N., Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-04495

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant Eminent Medical Center, LLC’s September 22, 

2022 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file its brief on the merits.1 We 

GRANT the motion and extend the time to October 3, 2022. 

Also before the Court is appellee’s September 22, 2022 motion for an 

extension of time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to 

October 24, 2022.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE 

1 Appellant Amos Heard, R.N. has filed his brief.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig A. Tooman, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.

|               |  |                                                                                                          | 
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|March 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Craig A. Tooman                                                                                      | 
|               |  |                                                                                                          | 
|               |  | Craig A. ToomanExecutive Vice President,Finance and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1677 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to convene a task force to develop recommendations on the proper disposal 

of unused pharmaceuticals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2011 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to convene a task force to develop recommendations on the proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Free Water Act 

5 of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1677 IH

1 SEC. 2. TASK FORCE ON PROPER DISPOSAL OF UNUSED 

2 PHARMACEUTICALS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—In furtherance of the national 

4 goals and policies set forth in section 101 of the Federal 

5 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251), the Ad6 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (in 

7 this Act referred to as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall convene 

8 a task force (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘task force’’) 

9 to develop— 

10 (1) recommendations on the proper disposal of 

11 unused pharmaceuticals by consumers, health care 

12 providers, and others, which recommendations 

13 shall— 

14 (A) be calculated to prevent or reduce the 

15 detrimental effects on the environment and 

16 human health caused by introducing unused 

17 pharmaceuticals, directly or indirectly, into 

18 water systems; and 

19 (B) provide for limiting the disposal of un20 used pharmaceuticals through treatment works 

21 in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution 

22 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and 

23 (2) a strategy for the Federal Government to 

24 educate the public on such recommendations. 

25 (b) MEMBERSHIP.—The task force shall be composed 

26 of— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1677 IH

1 (1) the Administrator (or the Administrator’s 

2 designee), who shall serve as the Chair of the task 

3 force; 

4 (2) the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (or 

5 the Commissioner’s designee); and 

6 (3) such other members as the Administrator 

7 may appoint. 

8 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

9 of the enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit 

10 a report to the Congress containing the recommendations 

11 and strategy required by subsection (a). 

12 (d) STAFF OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Upon request 

13 of the task force, the head of any department or agency 

14 of the United States may detail any of the personnel of 

15 that department or agency to the task force to assist in 

16 carrying out its duties under this section. 

17 (e) TERMINATION.—The task force shall terminate 

18 180 days after submitting the report required by sub19 section (c). 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
OG/22/201 0 1G:1 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS 0001/00 2

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

T n th e Maile r

of : Federal Expres s Corporatio n Responden i FA A Docke t No
. CP09AT,000 5
FA A Cas e No
. 2007AL7004 9 

# RECEIVE D Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwi n NOTIC E O FAPPEARANC E 

### JU N 

### 0 3 201 0 

## HEARIN G DOCKE T Come s no w Lawrenc e W
. Bierlein , E.sq. , andhereb y file s thi s Notic e o f Appearanc e in thi s maue r an dstate s tha

t h e i s representin g Responden t Federa l Expres. s Corporatio n in thi s matter . Date dthi s 2n dda

y o f June , 2010
. Respectfull y submiued ,

110 1 30t h Street , N

W Suite 50 0 Washington , D C 2000 7 (202 ) 625-835 5 (202 ) 625-436 3 FAX06/22/201 0 16:1 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A •s - DM S 12002/00 2

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I certif y that atru e andcorrec t

cop y o f th e foregoin g wa s forwarde dvi aOvernigh t deliver y o n th e 2n dda

y o f .Tune , 201 0 to ; Th e Honorabl e RichardC , Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Eas t Buildin g Ciroun

dFloor , Roo m£12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Mr
. Glenn H
. Brow n Senio r Attorne y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regional Counse l - Alaska n Regio n 22 2 Wes t 7t h Avenu e #1 4 Anchorage , Alask a99513-758 7 Ms
. Courtne y E
. Felt s Senio r Attorne y - Regulator

y Affair s Federa l Expres s Corporatio n 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g R , 3" ' Floo r Memphis , TN 3812 5
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1647 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1647

   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot 
  program under which certain veterans may submit claims for benefits 
under laws administered by the Secretary to any regional office of the 
                    Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

    Mr. Runyan (for himself and Mr. Johnson of Ohio) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot 
  program under which certain veterans may submit claims for benefits 
under laws administered by the Secretary to any regional office of the 
                    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Choice in Filing Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM ON SUBMITTAL OF CLAIMS TO ANY REGIONAL OFFICE OF 
              THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Pilot Program Required.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
shall carry out a two-year pilot program under which the Secretary 
shall permit a qualifying veteran filing a claim for benefits under a 
law administered by the Secretary to submit such claim to any regional 
office of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary shall 
promptly notify each qualifying veteran of the opportunity to 
participate in the pilot program.
    (b) Qualifying Veterans.--For the purposes of the pilot program 
under subsection (a), a qualifying veteran is a veteran who would, 
except as provided under the pilot program, be required to submit a 
claim to one of five regional offices of the Department selected by the 
Secretary based on below average performance.
    (c) Reports.--
            (1) Interim report.--Upon the selection of the Secretary of 
        five regional offices for the purposes of subsection (b), the 
        Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that lists the 
        offices selected and the Secretary's rationale for selecting 
        such offices.
            (2) Final report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
        completion of the pilot program under subsection (a), the 
        Secretary shall submit to Congress a final report on the pilot 
        program that contains the Secretary's recommendations with 
        respect to the allocation of resources among the regional 
        offices of the Department.
                                 <all>
```